"I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," she [Clinton] said. "He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."
The question I've been asking myself is a simple one: how many Democratic primary voters have actually read Obama's 2002 Iraq speech in full? Have you, kind reader, read his speech in full? Have you passed on the full text of his speech to others? Have you printed it out and passed it along?
In this diary I present a flashback to Obama's Iraq speech from 2002, and dissect his speech into parts to see how his campaign philosophy and platform can be traced to his 926 words from October 2, 2002.
If you haven't read Obama's Iraq war speech before, or haven't read it recently, please take two minutes and read it now (below).
First, let's begin with his speech in full.
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
...
Next, let's analyze a few sections of it.
Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
Being against the war in 2002 was rhetorically, if not politically easy: just say "I'm against the war". Many said just that, including many anti-war politicians. However, Obama stakes out a different position (one similar to that of Dean, if I remember correctly), that the Iraq war in particular is a bad idea. To make this case, Obama clearly frames the issues as not being "anti-war" vs. "pro-war" but rather as "anti-dumb war" and "pro-dumb war". The rhetorical device "I don't oppose all wars" sets the stage: there are wars in the past which were difficult but were still the right thing to do.
I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war.
At this point, having clearly established the frame as being "anti-dumb war", he also makes it clear that patriotism is orthogonal to the issue at hand: the question is not whether being anti-war or pro-war is patriotic, but rather, is the war that's under consideration - a war with Iraq - in the category of the Civil War or WWII, or is it a "dumb war"?
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
This framing is also one that was not commonly used, but is very important: that war with Iraq was not a standalone question, but one that had broad reaching political impact.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
This paragraph looks particularly forward-looking today. (For context, around that time, Jan. 03, John McCain said: "I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks.")
Sen. Obama saw that the war had no end in sight. He saw that the costs could grow indefinitely. He saw that the larger impact could be dire, and critically, could strengthen Al Qaeda, as it has done. In addition, he realized that "even a success war against Iraq" would require an occupation; it's clear from this that he knew that once in Iraq, we couldn't just de-fund and pull out immediately.
Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
For those not aware of it, Sen. Obama, once in the senate, worked with Sen. Lugar on safeguarding nuclear material (such as in fomer Soviet states) and later worked with Sen. Hagel on preventing nuclear weapons proliferation. Also, his recognition of the role that American companies have in this is critical, as we have for too long had a president who is complicit in the ways of the military-industrial complex.
Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
Although not explicitly called out in this speech, Sen. Obama on the campaign trail frequently makes this exact point - that more than just "fighting terrorism" in the Middle East, we must ensure that we promote free speech and a broad education there to change minds.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
Many of you may recognize this line as being one Sen. Obama echoes in many of his rally speeches, including his Iowa caucus victory speech.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
As all great speeches do, the main thesis is echoed at the end, and in this case, in more than one way. This last paragraph considers the war in its entirety, and asks that it only be waged if it is worth the cost. Implicit is a contrast to the civil war in his quotation of Lincoln - "full measure of devotion" - that we should ask whether this war is a war for which we should allow those brave enough to go die in our name.